Blowing Up Darwin

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A scientist can support his claims with evidence, looks to me like you missed that lesson.

This isn't going to work for you, sorry. Save the pomp and circumstance for church.

 

[abu afak]

Sherlock has a very scientific mind. He has discussed his science library and all you do is claw at his heels. He owns you. I own you. We want to sell you to the highest bidder.

As to my IQ, all know of myself on that is what my 7th grade teacher told me and later what the US army told me. They rated me as 156 IQ and that tops your IQ by a mile.

LOL
Post Any Documentation.
You should at least try/Aspire to something credible like 110.
You probably/noticeably didn't even have an 8th grade teature.

I'm in Mensa and the group above it, Intertel.
You are a BLITHERING FOOL whose down around 80.

Even on this board of low IQ morons, you're a Standout.
You've leapfrogged Under FrusaderCrank.
`

 

[abu afak]

You refuse to answer my question? tell me, do my two Italian Greyhounds have utility? Recall that YOU brought up utility when you said this to me: "I see, that philosophy is not a utility" yet cannot now explain what you meant, why do you say things that you cannot explain? is that how you think a scientist should talk?

Why do you use terms that you cannot even define?

View attachment 1054625

You are full of shlt on every topic. You ambiguate/deflect out of a factual discussion and turn it into a philosophical one.. and then try for some sort of semantic win.
You'll note this Never happens with me.
I shut you down while Hollie went into nowhere land with you because she is not as sharp semantically.
I do not indulge your shuttle to never-never land/supernatural/philosophical.

Again, the debate is simple.

On First spark
1. We don't know/know yet.
OR
2. God of the Gaps. FAITH with -0- evidence.
-
On subsequent life sprawl:
1. GodDidit: -0- Evidence
OR
2. Evolution: Overwhelming Scientific Evidence.
- - -

Anyone who bites on your journey to ambiguity/supernatural/philosophical world is as stupid as Robert W (12 IQ)
Again.
GAMEOVER
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You’re desperately trying to backtrack.

Show us any original research done by any of your ID’iot creationer ministries.

They’re all fronts for hacks and charlatans pressing a religious agenda.

How sad for you. You’re an accomplice to hacks and ftauds.

Mor accusations without supporting evidence, is this what modern science teaches these days?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

These two are very bad faith posters.

 

[Hollie]

Mor accusations without supporting evidence, is this what modern science teaches these days?

I have no evidence of any original research done by any of your iD’iot creationer ministries. That’s not just an accusation, it happens to be true.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've written one of these and I'm working on a second

These two are very bad faith posters.

Maybe you have the testicular rectitude to answer a question that Hollie refuse to answer when he/she claimed that philosophy had no value because it has no utility. I asked her if this has utility and despite three attempts to get an answer none was forthcoming.

Does this have utility:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've written one of these and I'm working on a second

Maybe you have the testicular rectitude to answer a question that Hollie refuse to answer when he/she claimed that philosophy had no value because it has no utility. I asked her if this has utility and despite three attempts to get an answer none was forthcoming.

Does this have utility:

No, we're not your assistants.

You answer the question and make a point, like a rational adult. If you have any point, it's doesn't rely on what we had for breakfast.

Get it through your thick skull. Enough of your bad faith sealioning.

And, go.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I have no evidence of any original research done by any of your iD’iot creationer ministries. That’s not just an accusation, it happens to be true.

Well I have written one of these and I'm working on a second:

SUBJECTS - COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY - Page 1 - BarCharts Publishing Inc makers of QuickStudy

www.barcharts.com

and I've written several articles in the technical press about electronics, robots and computing.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, we're not your assistants.

You answer the question and make a point, like a rational adult.

Get it through your thick skull.

And, go.

But it is not for me to provide evidence and answer for claims made by others. When I'm asked for a source to support my claims I readily provide one because I have nothing to hide, I'm just honest and life's easy when one is honest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But it is not for me to provide evidence and answer for claims made by otheothers.

Irrelevant.

The charlatan has no point. Again. ^^

 

[Hollie]

I've written one of these and I'm working on a second

Maybe you have the testicular rectitude to answer a question that Hollie refuse to answer when he/she claimed that philosophy had no value because it has no utility. I asked her if this has utility and despite three attempts to get an answer none was forthcoming.

Does this have utility:

Hollie notes that in your desperation, you have fraudulently changed what Hollie earlier conveyed in a prior post.

Lying for Jesus now?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hollie notes that in your desperation, you have fraudulently changed what Hollie earlier conveyed in a prior post.

Lying for Jesus now?

Sorry was that a "yes" or "no" to my question about the music and utility (a term you introduced to the discussion).

 

[Hollie]

Well I have written one of these and I'm working on a second:

SUBJECTS - COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY - Page 1 - BarCharts Publishing Inc makers of QuickStudy

www.barcharts.com

and I've written several articles in the technical press about electronics, robots and computing.

Nothing to indicate what you represent is anything but another fraud.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Irrelevant.

The charlatan has no point. Again. ^^

Ahh, I understand now, you're not real, your just a little bot running in some little PC somewhere, a poorly trained AI.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The charlatan is too much a coward to argue points, because the charlatan knows he has no good arguments.

So the charlatan tries to poke holes in the arguments of others, while honestly thinking (due to the low logical ability and knowledge of the charlatan) that this somehow lends truth to his own claims.

These holes typically rely on the truth of the charlatan's own fetishes and premises, which the charlatan is of course first tasked with arguing as true himself, but which the charlatan refuses to do.

Any rational adult sees the dishonesty and unethical behavior in such tactics.

This is how the charlatan operates.

Now watch for a full demonstration.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ahh, I understand now, you're not real, your just a little bot running in some little PC somewhere, a poorly trained AI.

This won't help you, crybaby.

Evolution remains a fact, and you would still fail a 7th grade science quiz.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nothing to indicate what you represent is anything but another fraud.

What more do you want then?

 

[Hollie]

Sorry was that a "yes" or "no" to my question about the music and utility (a term you introduced to the discussion).

My prior post was clear. You are fraudulently attempting to sidestep and backtrack.

 

[Hollie]

What more do you want then?

No one asked you to perpetrate a fraud.